PeakTrader.com

[administrator]

PeakTrader:

Using Crime instead of Drugs:

““[The] War on Crime” has been a colossal failure… No progress in dealing with Crime can be expected until that basic truth is recognized…The retreat from the war on Crime has already begun…The question is whether it will be a sensible retreat with systematic changes in the law toward decriminalization and legalization of Crime, or a disorganized retreat that leaves users and sellers of Crime with unclear legal status.”

******

I’ve shown data before U.S. property and violent crime rates quadrupled from 1960 to 1975, stabilized from 1975 to 1990, and then fell sharply.

Also:

Is Illinois winning the War on Drugs?
Chicago Tribune
July 24, 2011

Jack Riley, special agent in charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration in Chicago…noted that Chicago’s decreasing crime is an important indicator that the so-called War on Drugs is working.

About 70 percent of all crime can be traced to drugs, he said, and crime in the city is at its lowest in years.

“They (police, DEA, etc.) believe in what we’re doing because they see the devastation drugs are causing.”

******

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It’s worth spending $40 billion a year on the War on Drugs to prevent over $300 billion a year in social costs.

******

The millions of irresponsible drug users you want to create will spoil it for the millions of responsible drug users you want to create.

******

People who do illegal drugs aren’t innocent. They’re outlaws. Buying and using guns is not the same as buying and using drugs (and you may not get high on a glass of wine, like a marijuana joint). You don’t have the right to drink, smoke, snort, or inject any drug you feel like.

---

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/05/americas-40-year-war-on-drugs-has-been-a-colossal-failure/#comments

---

Actually, Prohibition Was a Success
New York Times
October 16, 1989

“What everyone ”knows” about Prohibition is that it was a failure. It did not eliminate drinking; it did create a black market. That in turn spawned criminal syndicates and random violence. Corruption and widespread disrespect for law were incubated and, most tellingly, Prohibition was repealed only 14 years after it was enshrined in the Constitution.

But the conventional view of Prohibition is not supported by the facts.

First, the regime created in 1919 by the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act, which charged the Treasury Department with enforcement of the new restrictions, was far from all-embracing. The amendment prohibited the commercial manufacture and distribution of alcoholic beverages; it did not prohibit use, nor production for one’s own consumption. Moreover, the provisions did not take effect until a year after passage -plenty of time for people to stockpile supplies.

Second, alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.

Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.

Third, violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition’s 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after.

Fourth, following the repeal of Prohibition, alcohol consumption increased. Today, alcohol is estimated to be the cause of more than 23,000 motor vehicle deaths and is implicated in more than half of the nation’s 20,000 homicides. In contrast, drugs have not yet been persuasively linked to highway fatalities and are believed to account for 10 percent to 20 percent of homicides.”

---

Historical Saving Chart:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PSAVERT

---

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/05/weed-legalization-in-ca-puts-illegal-dealers-out-of-business-so-they-move-to-ny-where-drug-laws-keep-their-profits-high/#comments

PeakTrader:

I suspect this reaction when someone goes into a 9th century town where everyone believes the world is flat and you show them the world is round.

Methinks would be considered one of the town’s intellectuals and Ron one of the country bumpkins.

---

PeakTrader:

“Obama Promised a 21st Century Approach to Drugs, but his administration continues to push policies that punish drug users.”

Even Obama knows the country can’t afford a drug epidemic.

******

Since drug users are punishing non-drug users, then why not punish them?

******

Recently, I had to call 911 and report to the police when a black guy wearing black clothes was running in the middle of a dark street and was run over by a car.

Somehow, when he ran into the car, his legs were run over. One leg was so twisted, his foot faced the other way. He was likely on alcohol or drugs or both.

I’m sure it’ll cost a lot of money to pay for his legs and other injuries, and he’ll likely be on disability for the rest of his life. I wonder who’ll pay for all that?

At least, it seemed, he didn’t feel a thing, since he was so high?

******

Morganovich, that law against crapping on people’s yards, and expecting them to clean it up, must be annoying you.

---